Tag Archives: Translations

A Jesuit on the Committee

Dr. Ken Matto, “Did Rome Give Us The Bible?:”

Let us bring the Greek manuscripts to today. The Hort and Westcott manuscripts are found today in the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, the latest being the fourth revision and the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece which has had 27 revisions. Both of these underlie all the modern versions which means they are derivatives of the Roman Catholic manuscripts of Hort and Westcott.

On the editorial committees of each one is a man named Carlo Montini. Carlo Montini is a Jesuit Cardinal. This means that not only are the manuscripts Roman Catholic, there was even a Roman Catholic Jesuit on the Greek committees of both the Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies. This means that Rome has been heavily involved in the modern version movement since these manuscripts underlie all the modern versions.

Source and read more: http://www.scionofzion.com/rome_bible.htm


Rome’s Attack Predated the Enlightenment

Jerusalem Blade:

Where, in the post-Reformation centuries, does heterodoxy originate? With the relinquishing of the doctrine of the Bible’s inspiration by God, and then in a cascading loss of faith in biblical infallibility / inerrancy, or, on the other hand, with a rationalistic approach to textual studies, or from other factors, and possibly a combination of these and many others? Or, as you surmise, it primarily comes from the fountainhead of Enlightenment philosophy?

Rome did indeed seek to undermine the Reformation’s dependence on the Scripture alone, and through them by faith alone in Christ alone. They sought to execute this work of undermining by bringing forth variants from other manuscripts in the Vatican library that the Reformers eschewed as being unreliable, and also by seeking to attack their Hebrew Scriptures over the issue of the vowel points. For the Catholics their Tradition was above the Bible, and the church had – they said – given birth to the Bible. The Reformer’s view of the authority of God’s word in the Bible was a lethal attack on the very foundations of Rome.

I think Rome’s attack on the texts predated the full bloom of the Enlightenment by perhaps a little less than a century. Richard Simon (1638-1712), a Catholic scholar, is considered by Metzger as perhaps the father of textual criticism – highly critical of the Bible (OT & New) in the vein of Metzger. But then John Mill (1645-1708) brought Enlightenment / rationalistic thought to bear upon the Bible, and he is considered one of the very first textual critics in the modern sense of the term. So yes, the spirit of the age – the philosophy of the Enlightenment – in which reason was held to be the primary source and legitimacy for authority, was the immediate genesis of the heterodoxy that would come to fruition in the church in centuries to follow.

This development of textual criticism according to rationalistic principles – as opposed to the faith principles of the Reformers – would naturally result in views antagonistic to the Reformation churches’ stand on divine inspiration and God’s providential preservation of the Scriptures.

Source and read more: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/skepticism-and-doubt-toward-the-bible.52046/, Comment 6

A Torpedo in the Hold: Roman Catholic Involvement in the Text-Critical Industry

Jerusalem Blade from the Puritan Board:

Now we get to a different aspect of the matter. One that is not often brought into the discussion. E.R., to answer you directly, No, I do not charge or insinuate “non-KJV users with Roman Catholic tendencies”! However—and it’s a big “however”—many Reformed folks may simply be unaware of Roman Catholic involvement in the text-critical industry.

For instance, it does not inspire confidence in Reformed persons that the publishers of the Critical Text, the United Bible Societies, unabashedly serve the Vatican and the Pope, of whom UBS General Secretary Michael Perreau said,

“Pope Francis embodies several ‘first ever’ aspects: he’s the first Jesuit pope, the first Latin American pope, and the first to choose St Francis of Assisi as the patron of his papacy. He combines modesty, not least in his lifestyle, with fervent engagement for the poor, and traditional Catholic theology with courageous advocacy for human rights.

“He is a man of the universal church with an ecumenical spirit and he is a pastor, who knows the reality of ‘simple’ people. The new Pope is a truly biblical person whose faith and actions are deeply rooted in the Bible and inspired by the Word of God.”

“As a long-time friend of the Bible Societies Pope Francis knows that our raison d’être is the call to collaborate in the incarnation of our Christian faith,” says Mr Perreau. “We assure Pope Francis of our renewed availability to serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation.”


And further, the Nestle-Aland Greek NT 27th Ed. page 45 clearly states that,

The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text (in the sense of the century-long Nestle tradition): it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament. For many reasons, however, the present edition has not been deemed an appropriate occasion for introducing textual changes. [Emphasis added]​

Source document:

Nestle-Aland Greek NT 27th Ed[​IMG] by Steve R., on Flickr

What amazes me is that good Reformed souls can fall for the Roman assault on Sola Scriptura through their prize MSS (the “Queen of the Uncials” Vaticanus is called), which is the main exemplar and basis of the Greek Critical Text, throwing into disarray the defense of the Reformation. Is it not evident? The textual conflicts among the Reformed—indeed, the entire Protestant camp—derive from the Catholic assault against Sola Scriptura via the variant-laden manuscripts they have for a long while, to this very day, promoted as the superior “neutral” text, or the superior eclectic text. Their agenda? Furthering “interconfessional relationships… under their [the Vatican’s] supervision”. What am I saying? That, in large measure, Rome has defeated the Reformation’s stand. The loss of the Reformation’s Bibles in lieu of the plethora of Critical Text Bibles—which foment the discord and confusion we see here even in this very thread—has weakened the faith in a sure and reliable word of God.

I’m not making this stuff up. If the UBS-Papal union and collaboration does not convince you, I don’t know what will. Yes, some good and scholarly men (and women) believe the CT the superior text despite the Roman connection; well and good. It remains that Rome’s agenda has succeeded: the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as the Reformation’s foundation has been destroyed. We are in disarray.

Oh, it may seem we are thriving, and individual churches (and individual souls) may seem to be so, for the time, but the Reformation ship has taken a torpedo in the hold, and the leak cannot be mended.

Some may decry what has happened, and call for folks to return to the Reformation’s textual standard, but the hole is too big. The lifeboats of local churches remain. May God our Shepherd (to change metaphors) guide us to Celestial City, using skilled and godly pastors who with wisdom take His direction.

I believe, as an amillennial proponent, that the eschaton draws near, with the preliminary judgments, catastrophes, and apostatizing, and then the global turning against the saints before His return. How long? I do not know.

This is why I hold up the Reformation Bibles: a sure word of God is our strength, and the standard of the Spirit of the LORD when the enemy comes in like a flood (Isa 59:19-21).

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/so-many-kjv-arguments.94744/, Comment 10

Falsifying the Text

Two people interrupted while reading the "forbidden book" (t Wellcome V0048174

Larry Brigden on Rome’s current support for the Critical Text and the United Bible Societies:

“Whenever in the past Rome could not ‘altogether prevent the Holy Scriptures from being translated and circulated, she has made no scruple of falsifying the text’.[2]  Hence, the use of the corrupt Critical Text by the United Bible Societies is consistent with Rome’s purposes, and she will consequently lend support to such a work.  On the other hand, if the Received Text were to be used, Rome would doubtless take a different view.”

[2] T.H. Horne and W.E. Painter, Popery, the Enemy and Falsifier of the Scripture (London, England: William Edward Painter, 1844), p. 4.

Bridgen backs up this latter statement with the fact that Rome has never published any Bible translated from the Masoretic and Received texts.

Source: Trinitarian Bible Society, Quarterly Record Issue Number: 620 – July to September 2017, 186th Annual Report for the year ending 31 December 2016, pages 41-42.

The Majority Text Has Always Been The Text of the Church

The Identity of the New Testament Text II by Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD, Chapter 5:

840703_53305433In his book Aland’s discussion of the transmission of the NT text is permeated with the assumption that the Byzantine text was a secondary development that progressively contaminated the pure Egyptian (“Alexandrian”) text. But the chief “Alexandrian” witnesses, B, A (except e) and À (The Text, p. 107), are in constant and significant disagreement among themselves; so much so that there is no objective way of reconstructing an archetype. 150 years earlier the picture is the same; P45, P66 and P75 are quite dissimilar and do not reflect a single tradition. In A.D. 200 “there was no king in [Egypt]; everyone did what was right in his own eyes,” or so it would seem. But what if we were to entertain the hypothesis that the Byzantine tradition is the oldest and that the “Western” and “Alexandrian” MSS represent varying perturbations on the fringes of the main transmissional stream? Would this not make better sense of the surviving evidence? Then there would have been no “Western” or “Egyptian” archetypes, just various sources of contamination that acted in such a random fashion that each extant “Western” or “Egyptian” MS has a different ‘mosaic’. In contrast, there would indeed be a “Byzantine” archetype, which would reflect the original. In fact, virtually perfect exemplars exist in our day, as illustrated by 1841 for the pauline corpus and 424 for the general epistles.

Aland seems to grant that down through the centuries of church history the Byzantine text was regarded as “the text of the church”, and he traces the beginning of this state of affairs to Lucian.[49] He makes repeated mention of a “school of/at Antioch” and of Asia Minor. All of this is very interesting, because in his book he agrees with Adolf Harnack that “about 180 the greatest concentration of churches was in Asia Minor and along the Aegean coast of Greece”.[50] This is the area where Greek was the mother tongue and where Greek continued to be used. It is also the area that started out with most of the Autographs. But Aland continues: “Even around A.D. 325 the scene was still largely unchanged. Asia Minor continued to be the heartland of the Church.” “The heartland of the Church”—so who else would be in a better position to identify the correct text of the New Testament? Who could ‘sell’ a fabricated text in Asia Minor in the early fourth century? I submit that the Byzantine text dominated the transmissional history because the churches in Asia Minor vouched for it. And they did so, from the very beginning, because they knew it was the true text, having received it from the Apostles. The Majority Text is what it is just because it has always been the Text of the Church.

Read more: http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/id_5.html

Read the whole book here: http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/index.html

Problems with the NKJV

The Sound of an Alarm:

This is a synopsis of a sermon preached in Newtownabbey Free Presbyterian Church in March 2010
 New King James Version (1982)2 Corinthians 2 v 17: For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. 

One of the many strategies that the devil employs against the Lord and His truth is his attempt to corrupt the Word of God. It has always been the devil’s desire to corrupt God’s truth. When he tempted Eve we see that strategy in operation:
[1] He first cast ‘doubt’ on the Word of God: Yea hath God said Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:1;
[2] Next he ‘contradicted’ the Word of God: Ye shall not surely die, v4;
[3] He then ‘denied’ the Word of God: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil, v5.

The devil has never left off that mode of operating against the truth of God. Sadly, when viewed from a purely human perspective it has to be acknowledged that his strategy seems quite successful. A corrupt Bible can do a great deal of harm and there are many of them about today!

The Problem with Reasoned Eclecticism

Codex Vaticanus B, 2Thess. 3,11-18, Hebr. 1,1-2,2Consider the source of the manuscripts being discussed here and the implications that has for the Bibles many people are reading:

via New Testament Textual Criticism:

“The main problem with Reasoned Eclecticism is that, while in theory it gives all the appearance of being governed by sensible and carefully balanced guidelines, in reality there is only one rule: follow the reading of one or two fourth century Alexandrian manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Now, of course, I am exaggerating slightly here. But that there is a problem here is easy to demonstrate.”

“The cumulative effect of the evidence that Royse presents is eye-opening: case after case of obvious scribal blunders in Vaticanus that are still included in the UBS text, some of which are rated as virtual textual certainties by the UBS editors! After seeing Royse’s evidence it is hard to resist the conclusion that the UBS editors have serious problems objectively assessing the merits of the readings of certain favoured manuscripts. It is the systematic presentation of evidence by Royse that proves the point that there is a definite tendency at work: to turn a blind eye to obvious errors when Vaticanus is involved.”

The evidence from scribal habits demands a radical re-evaluation of textual evidence at hundreds of places, not a little tinkering here and there. The reality is that any text that consistently and overwhelmingly prefers shorter readings (like the UBS/NA text) cannot anymore claim to represent the original text of the New Testament. What is required is the reintroduction of hundreds of readings that have been culled from the original New Testament text and relegated to the critical apparatus of the UBS/NA text. This is the reality of what is required to realign NT textual criticism with the research into scribal habits, yet the very thought is unmentionable – anathema – to most textual critics.

“The last problem we shall mention is again a direct result of the first problem – the reduction of NT textual criticism to a one-line creed: follow Codex Vaticanus and its friends. This fourth problem is that Reasoned Eclecticism as currently practiced largely depends upon a belief that in the fourth century there was a complete re-editing of the Greek New Testament that produced the later form of the Greek NT text. To use the language of the man in the street, what this idea means is that in the fourth century of the Christian era, the Greek New Testament was ‘doctored’ by some ecclesiastical authorities (some suggest Lucian of Antioch was responsible) to produce the Byzantine text which largely dominated the middle ages. Westcott and Hort used the idea of a Lucianic Recension to (conveniently) dispose of 95% of the Greek manuscript evidence (the Byzantine text) as having sprung from the corrupting influence of this 4th Century re-editing process. At a stroke, the numerical preponderance of the Byzantine evidence was dismissed as having sprung from one (late) edited manuscript. As a result, they were left with two early streams of manuscript evidence – the Alexandrian uncials and the Western evidence (headed by Codex Bezae, easily the most bizarre text of the NT).  Westcott and Hort chose the Alexandrian uncials, headed by Vaticanus. The Lucianic Recension was the foundation stone of Westcott and Hort’s textual theory; their history of the text underpinned  everything else they believed.”

“Hear the conclusion of the matter: Reasoned Eclecticism, as exemplified in the current critical text, is a swindle. It is neither truly eclectic, nor fair and reasonable in its treatment of internal evidence, nor willing to adapt to incoming research. The internal arguments marshalled in the UBS commentary are a sideshow, a smokescreen intended to distract the reader from the real process which determines the text: following what Codex Vaticanus reads. Reasoned Eclecticism is unable or unwilling to abandon ‘the mirage of Vaticanus infallibility’ (Gunter Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, p217).”

Read more: http://www.nttext.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=67&Itemid=75

Further thoughts from Steve Rafalsky on Vaticanus:

“Vaticanus has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued. Those with some historical knowledge will remember that these were the years of the Inquisition in Spain during the reign of Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484). In 1481 some 2,000 believers dissenting with Rome were burned alive, with multitudes of others tortured (M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, p. 104). When Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) sat in the royal “Throne of Peter,” he followed in the vein of his namesake Innocent III and commenced anew a persecution against the peaceful Waldensian Christians in the northern Italian Alps, commanding their destruction “like venomous snakes” if they would not repent and turn to Rome (Wylie, History of the Waldenses, pp. 27-29). Bloodbaths followed against these harmless mountain peoples, who had their own Scriptures from ancient times, and worshipped in Biblical simplicity and order.

It perplexes many that the Lord of these many hundreds of thousands of Bible-believing saints who were tortured with unimaginable barbarity and slaughtered like dogs by the Roman Catholic “church” for centuries (it is no exaggeration to say for over a millennium) should have kept His choicest preserved manuscript in the safekeeping of the Library of the apostate murderers, designating it by their own ignominious name: Vaticanus.

It is surely an anomaly to the Reformed mind when they consider that the so-called “Queen of the manuscripts” was in the treasures and under the care of the antichrist, and given to the world to – in effect – undermine the text and sola Scriptura doctrine of the Reformation, in the name of “modern textual criticism”. All this fancy footwork of argumentation, all this scorn and dismissal of the Authorized Version, well, you can have it. I will hold fast to the old paths.”

Source: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/87309-Ecclesiastical-Text-%E2%80%94-Response-to-James-White/page2, Comment #76

The Authorized Guy Responds to James White on the Ecclesiastical Text

A discussion of this video can be found here: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/87309-Ecclesiastical-Text-%E2%80%94-Response-to-James-White?s=0af31f92a2f3be6b719768acb6edffd0

The Textus Receptus and Mark 16:9-20

via James Japan (TFI) on Mark 16:9-20 and the footnote, “these verses are not in the oldest, best, most reliable Greek manuscripts”:

Mark16-BOf the approximately 3,119 Greek manuscripts of the NT extant today, none is complete. The segment of text bearing Mark 16 has been lost from many, but over 1,800 contain the section and verses 9-20 are present in all but the 3 cited above. The footnote is thus unveiled and laid bare as dishonest and deliberately misleading in intimating that these verses are not the Word of God. The external evidence is massive. Not only is the Greek manuscript attestation ratio over 600 to 1 in support of the verses (1,800 to 3 =99.99%) – all but one of the approximately 8,000 extant Latin mss, all but one of the approximately 1,000 Syriac versions as well as all the over 2,000 known Greek Lectionaries contain the verses. Mark 16:9-20 were cited by Church “Fathers” who lived 150 years or more before Vaticanus B or Sinaiticus Aleph were written: Papias (c.100), Justin Martyr (c.150), Irenaeus (c.180), Tertullian (c.195), and Hippolytus (c.200; see: John Burgon, The Revision Revised, London: John Murray Pub, 1883, pp.422-423)…

…Erasmus was well aware of Vaticanus B and its variant readings in 1515 AD at which time he was preparing the New Testament Greek text. Because they read so differently from the vast majority of the approximately 200 mss he had already examined, Erasmus considered such readings spurious. For example, Vaticanus B leaves out “Mystery Babylon the Great”, “the seven heads that are the seven mountains upon which the harlot (the apostate religious system that began at Babel of which the Roman church is a part) sits”, and leaves out “the woman which is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth” which has seven mountains. All of this may be found in Revelation 17.

[emphasis in original post]


Read more: http://jamesjpn.net/basic-bible/the-mutilation-of-mark-169-20-by-floyd-nolen-jones-th-d-ph-d

Note: The author of James Japan belongs to The Family International but holds to a Protestant Historicist understanding of eschatology

Modern Bibles Supporting Catholic Doctrine

Via James Japan:

Gospel of Mary“Author David W. Daniels points out in his book, Why They Changed the Bible, how all modern Bibles are increasingly slanted to support Rome’s pagan dogmas. An entire section is devoted to the scheme to include the Apocrypha in the Bible. He describes how the Bible societies were, from the beginning, infiltrated with Jesuits or Vatican sympathizers. Bible societies agreed not only to change text wording to favor unbiblical Catholic teaching, but to add in the Apocrypha whenever requested. Bible translators all over the world are subject to a 1960s agreement with the Vatican to add the Apocrypha to any translation if the Catholic people groups ask for it. The history and tragic results of this are detailed in Why They Changed the Bible.”

Read more: http://jamesjpn.net/conspiracy/modern-bibles-slanted-to-support-roman-catholic-church-doctrines

Note: The author of this site belongs to The Family International but holds to a Protestant Historicist understanding of eschatology